Lately I’ve been reading and hearing a lot about toxic masculinity and its destructive effects on individual men, and by extrapolation on society in general.

But what is it?

Ask that question in a crowded room and it’s likely the answers would swing from one end of the spectrum to another while sticking to a central theme that something is definitely wrong with males and male culture — but here’s an interesting offering from somebody named Tyler Zimmer, writing in Slate:

“This is the double standard at the heart of masculinity: Men are taught to regularly say and do things to women that they would never say or do to other men, that they would never want men to say or do to them. That is not due to some timeless ‘male libido’ driving their behavior. It’s because masculinity is founded on the myth that men alone are rights-bearing persons and women are subordinate, passive, second-class beings who either need the protection of or deserve to be subjected to men.”

Here Zimmer assumes an odd willingness and unearned authority to speak on behalf of all men, which may stray a tad bit onto the presumptuous side. More importantly, I think what he’s actually talking about is a thing called bad manners, which isn’t exactly a new discovery, and I’m not sure that any of it has anything intrinsically to do with masculinity.

And also, he’s just dead wrong. He’s not only wildly exaggerating the contemporary state of masculinity – which is admittedly in weird shape – but he’s also ignorant or assuming facts not necessarily in evidence when he wanders into foundational myths of manhood.

To begin with, it is quite likely that without toxic masculinity the human species would never have survived at all, given the conditions faced by human beings over 6 million years of evolution. It seems likely that aggressive maleness was probably essential to survival and while civilization has tamped the frequency and lethality with which it must be employed – I am living proof of its continuing relevance after having once fought a parolee on Angel Dust for almost eleven minutes in an apartment complex parking lot.

At any rate, here’s another gem found in a column written for USA today — a terrible newspaper that nevertheless reaches seven million people every day. In it, Alia E. Dastigir opines that: “The stereotypical sense of masculinity is at war with everything we know about what it means to be human.”

That’s quite a burden to place on half of the population, even if it actually made any sense.

Elsewhere, toxic masculinity is “defined by adherence to traditional male gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the ‘alpha male’) and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger.”

Still elsewhere we find that toxic masculinity is at the root of mass shootings, random murders, virtually every sex crime, and also that there are numerous support groups for those diagnosed – raising the question of who is doing the diagnosing — with toxic masculinity. On campus, there are enthralling courses such as “Rethink Masculinity”, where young men can enroll to “unlearn” their inherent gender toxicity.

I don’t pretend to know where any of this thinking eventually leads, but the sudden phenomenon of cultural neutering probably shouldn’t come as any big surprise. As it stands, males of almost every domesticated species are routinely emasculated by a culture apparently living in mortal fear of actual maleness wherever it may, dare I say it – raise its ugly head.

There are good reasons for all of this ball-whacking in the realm of animal husbandry: male dogs can be very difficult to handle, bulls aren’t something to joke around with, and a stud horse can be a nasty animal indeed. But what I see in the toxic masculinity discussion is really more of an attempt to castrate male humans by way of a procedure on their minds rather than their gonads.

Of course, historically, it was always the gonads. There is a reason the Ottoman’s such as Tamerlane and Suleyman had eunuchs guarding their harems.

There is also, generally, in the toxic masculinity literature, an attempt to correlate maleness with the inevitable abuse of women. And one would think, based on Zimmer’s piece above, that there is some foundational myth at work that almost requires men to suppress their fears and desires only to fulfill those barbarous impulses with violence against females.

Lots and lots of toxicity

But there is some ancient historical evidence to the contrary. Here is the Roman Senator and historian Tacitus, writing about the toxic masculinity of the Germans of his day:

It stands on record that armies already wavering and on the point of collapse have been rallied by the women, pleading heroically with their men, thrusting forward their bared bosoms, and making them realize the imminent prospect of enslavement – a fate which the Germans fear more desperately for their women than for themselves. Indeed, you can secure a surer hold on these nations if you compel them to include among a consignment of hostages some girls of noble family. More than this, they believe that there resides in women an element of holiness and a gift of prophecy; and so they do not scorn to ask their advice, or lightly disregard their replies. In the reign of the emperor Vespasian we saw Veleda long honoured by many Germans as a divinity; and even earlier they showed a similar reverence for Aurinia and a number of others – a reverence untainted by servile flattery or any pretense of turning women into goddesses.

In other words, the unsophisticated, crude, and superstitious warriors who came out of the forests on the other side of the Rhine wearing animal skins and pantaloons weren’t necessarily club-wielding sexist pigs, and it appears to an educated and successful man of the time that in fact they saw women as valuable, inspiring, fully contributing human beings.

They did not, apparently, feel the same way about Roman Legions in the neighborhood.

Another interesting aspect of all this toxicity nonsense is that we frequently find it wrapped up in a blanket of condescension and maternal concern for the welfare of men: “Men suffer the most” we are told, or: masculinity is “Damaging to men” and “For this, men pay a steep price.”

I wonder what the overall balance sheet looks like for having a stiff upper lip rather than behaving erratically in a crisis, for rubbing some dirt on a raspberry instead of wailing, or for modeling one of the more important lines ever delivered in film: “There ain’t no crying in baseball.”

The suggestion by many of the druids of cultural change is that the price is toxicity, and that it is eating away at our culture like rust on a steel bridge.

On my first deployment overseas with the Marine Corps there were females on the warship. This meant that when we were topside, PT-ing on the flight deck, we were prohibited from singing our normal cadences because they were apparently too warrior-like and would upset the fairer sex. Nevermind that we were sailing into a combat zone — cussing and UDT shorts were prohibited.

And yet one of the greater secrets the Navy keeps is the sheer number of female sailors who become pregnant on warships during a deployment and are subsequently sent home from foreign ports. In 2017 nearly 2800 of 34,000 female sailors became pregnant on naval shipping. Based on those numbers it would seem that all of that prohibited toxic masculinity, exuded by able seamen and Marines worldwide, still has some appeal — just don’t sing any dirty cadences while you’re screwing your shipmate down in aft-steering.

The author, with toxic comrades, forward deployed

One of the reasons I love reading the ancients is that they are full of toxic masculinity of the very best kind. Heroism, warrior behavior, hard lessons learned while defending outdated notions like code, honor, responsibility to family and tribe. Which is why the story of Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus always tickles my fancy.

It amuses and informs because, firstly, it reveals that Caesar was a commander of his troops who paid attention to detail and loved everything about toxic masculinity. The very fact that he knew of Pullo and Vorenus and recalls their story – granted, to enhance his own legend – is still important and remarkable. And anyway it is not hard for me to believe that he was loved by his legions with the same passion that James “Chaos” Mattis is today loved by his Marines – who are essentially modern legionnaires on the tippy end of the American spear.

Many of us may be somewhat familiar with the story of Pullo and Vorenus from HBO’s acclaimed mini-series Rome. In modern television they are invested with rich detail and back-stories – all invented for dramatic purposes, but what we actually know of them is very little beyond what Caesar mentions in his marvelous history The Conquest of Gaul. He writes lovingly of the toxic masculinity of Titus Pullo, and maybe we can stipulate that it really is a monument in time:

In the legion were two very brave centurions named Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus, both of them nearly qualified for the first grade. They were always disputing which was the better soldier, and every year the competition for promotion set them quarrelling. When the fighting at the entrenchment was at its height, Pullo cried: ‘Why hesitate, Vorenus? What better opportunity do you want to prove your courage? Today shall decide between us.’ With these words he advanced outside the fortification and rushed into the thickest place he could see in the enemy’s line. This brought Vorenus too over the rampart, hastening after his rival for fear of what everyone would think if he lagged behind.

Pullo stopped a short way from the Gauls, hurled his spear and transfixed one of them who was running forward from the ranks. The man fainted from the wound, and his comrades covered him with their shields, at the same time showering missiles upon Pullo and preventing him from advancing further. His shield was pierced by a javelin, which stuck in his sword-belt; and as the blow knocked his scabbard out of place, he could not get his hand quickly to his sword when he tried to draw it, and was surrounded by the enemy while unable to defend himself.

His rival Vorenus ran up to rescue him in his distress, and all the Gauls immediately left Pullo, who they thought had been mortally wounded by the javelin, and turned upon Vorenus. Vorenus drew his sword and fighting hand to hand killed one of his assailants and drove the rest back a little; but pressing on too eagerly he stumbled down a steep slope and fell. It was now his turn to be surrounded, but Pullo came to his aid; both of them escaped unhurt and after killing a number of the enemy returned to camp covered with glory. Thus Fortune played with them in their struggle for preeminence: bitter rivals though they were, each helped and saved the other, so that it could not be decided which was the more deserving of the prize of valour.

Caesar, The Conquest of Gaul, Book V, The Second Rebellion

Shugart and Gordon, USA

Reading this passage also reminded me of another selfless act of toxic-masculinity, committed by US Army soldiers Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon. Like Pullo and Vorenus, they too rushed forward to help their comrades in peril.

Said Michael Durant, US Army Chief Warrant Officer, who likely survived only because of their actions:

“They didn’t seem alarmed by the situation that we were in. It was just focused on the task, doing what they needed to do to improve our situation, and get through it, get us rescued. Whatever it is they needed to do.”

There is little doubt than some men wield their masculine traits in ungentlemanly ways. These are men without code, without honor, and without manners. And they are very often, at the bottom of all that, cowards.

But there exists another kind of masculinity that is important for us to preserve. The kind that fights, fixes things, builds things, studies things, protects, earns, teaches, loves, and works diligently to know itself and to seek self-improvement.

My former colleague and good friend David Hedges, once a Centurion behind the shield and now a screenwriter in Hollywood, coined an excellent phrase. He called it “Bringing home the zebra.” The gist of it is that when faced with difficulties, men must lean on something within themselves and solve the problem. Fight it or fix it, just bring home the zebra because others are counting on it and a determined lion is a formidable thing.

Because men should be able to bring home some meat. And afterward they should be able to feast and tell the story of the hunt, or to read aloud from Beowulf and resurrect relevant lessons from the text of a 1200 year-old campfire story. And maybe, just maybe, young boys should be able to join the Boy Scouts without any little girls around to wreck it.

Craig Rullman is an award-winning journalist, freelance writer, and columnist for The Nugget Newspaper, in Sisters, Oregon. A veteran of the United States Marine Corps, he is a former police detective and SWAT Team Leader. Mr. Rullman holds an M.A. from Northern Arizona University, and...

Well, damn, it’s an essential distinction to make, isn’t it? “Men without code, without honor, without manners” as stacked up against “The kind that fights, fixes things, builds things, studies things, protects, earns, teaches, loves, and works diligently to know itself and to seek self-improvement.” I’ve been thinking about “honor” a bunch lately. Now I’m thinking about it even more. Thanks, Craig.

leave it to the Mexicans to take some of the toxic machismo out of their culture. huevos are eggs in Spanish, but in Mexican Spanish they have a double meaning. all over the restaurantes, in baja, sur, mexico they have a new huevos plate to offer. (along with the old standby of huevos rancheros) on the platter you get an egg on the left side, cooked to your order, and atop green chile. on the right side you get another egg, cooked to your order, atop red chile. in between are chilaquiles. this culinary delight is called “huevos divorciados”!

I’ll see if I can find the post that passed through me feed the other day. It said most shooters didn’t have a strong father figure. Or to put it another way, they didn’t have enough masculinity in their lives.

“On campus, there are enthralling courses such as “Rethink Masculinity”, where young men can enroll to “unlearn” their inherent gender toxicity.”

No. Just no.

“Because men should be able to bring home some meat. And afterward they should be able to feast and tell the story of the hunt, or to read aloud from Beowulf and resurrect relevant lessons from the text of a 1200 year-old campfire story. And maybe, just maybe, young boys should be able to join the Boy Scouts without any little girls around to wreck it.”

There is little doubt than some men wield their masculine traits in ungentlemanly ways. These are men without code, without honor, and without manners. And they are very often, at the bottom of all that, cowards.

But there exists another kind of masculinity that is important for us to preserve. The kind that fights, fixes things, builds things, studies things, protects, earns, teaches, loves, and works diligently to know itself and to seek self-improvement.

And I heard a great cry as thousands of haranguing social media threads went silent.

Seriously. Craig just thumbnailed it. To me, the rest is all ‘net noise.

Don’t get me wrong. I think there is value is discussing the healthy and unhealthy behaviors and how and what children are taught. But this “toxic masculinity” apex has–like every other attempted social media ‘debate’–devolved into shouting matches and nonsense.

There is tremendous value in the discussion when it is allowed to be a discussion instead of “shouting matches and nonsense.” Which seems to be the general trend across the board. I’m hopeful the pendulum will swing back. And I’m so glad you brought up Jack Johnson — perfect. Thanks, Paul

Yes!
••••
One of the things I like about how Craig handled this piece is that he didn’t try to defuse the term “toxic masculinity.” To do so is to allow the terms of the “conversation” (to the extent that there is one — it’s mostly one-way hectoring) to be set by people who are assailing your values. “Toxic” is allowed to mean whatever the user wants it to mean in any given context, and what Craig is recognizing is that it is used to pathologize masculinity across the board. Those who bandy about the term aren’t really interested in making distinctions between good behavior and bad — “toxic” is whatever they don’t like or whatever makes them uncomfortable. It is a silencing word, meant to shame. It can’t be pandered to.
That said, I’m jealous of the title of this piece, and feel a surge of competitiveness — which must mean that my toxic masculinity is bubbling to the surface…

I guess I think about toxic masculinity a little differently than a lot of the folks here—and perhaps differently than most of the folks out in the broader world who use the term as well. To me, toxic masculinity is the kind that’s emotionally or socially destructive, that overcompensates for insecurity by lashing out at others.

When I think about toxic masculinity, I think of two good examples, both exhibited by internet trolls and red pill guys. The first is social media harassment of women, which we’ve seen a lot of in recent times, and it’s emblematic of the way they think about women. It’s also emblematic of the problems many women face in American society—which, despite the myth of progress, is perhaps not the best place to be a woman in the broad scope of history. I read about women in Roman Germany (mentioned in your article) or the Viking age, and wonder if any of them would trade places with an American woman from the 19th-21st century. I obviously can’t answer that, but I have my suspicions.

The other example of toxic masculinity at work is the absolute rejection of any male homosocial relationships. It’s a troll thing, but it’s also a part of wider contemporary American culture. Men are not supposed to have emotionally deep relationships with other men. The classic homophobic response to those relationships is very telling; these guys believe that there’s something wrong with being homosexual (the Spartans would like a word…) and that it’s impossible for men to have deep, platonic, emotional bonds. This has been talked about it here and on Jim’s site as well, and I know many of us see it as a real problem.

Some people in our society do silly things, like conflate toxic masculinity with physical violence. They lament that we live in a world where violence is endemic, but never realize that in this universe energy transfers between organisms and heat dissipates, making violence an inevitability at the cellular level. It seems to me that attaching moral principles to that inevitable violence is thus a good example of harm reduction, and shouldn’t be crusaded against. Nor should many of the other “masculine” traits that are maligned.

But I can’t argue with the folks who point to the way a lot of men act and say that there’s a problem, because there is. Whether we call it toxic masculinity, male entitlement, or the sissy-fication of society by the removal of consequence (my preferred term), it’s definitely there.

I also don’t have a problem with girls in the Boy Scouts, but there still needs to be room for girls to spend time with just other girls and boys to spend time with just other boys. I’m a lot more concerned that society as a whole is coming for the “fun stuff” (canoeing, archery, blackpowder shooting) that made scouting a good time. After the Penn State decision, that fear has increased dramatically.

“I read about women in Roman Germany (mentioned in your article) or the Viking age, and wonder if any of them would trade places with an American woman from the 19th-21st century.” Nobody can, and the premise may not work under thorough examination.

“The other example of toxic masculinity at work is the absolute rejection of any male homosocial relationships. It’s a troll thing, but it’s also a part of wider contemporary American culture. Men are not supposed to have emotionally deep relationships with other men.”

Disagree entirely. The closest personal relationships I have in this world–outside of my wife and daughter–are with other men that I have shared hardship, deprivation, and scary moments with–most of them developed in the allegedly homophobic worlds of the military and police work. We typically and frequently say that we love each other. And we mean it. While that may not translate into the broader culture, what doesn’t work is the idea that “Men are not supposed to…” Says who? Because men do, and far more frequently than is alleged by the proponents of the “toxic masculinity” meme.

By and large I find that what is currently being herded into a “toxic masculinity” box really only amounts to rude and boorish behavior which falls under the “bad manners” banner. And I resist any attempts to lay the indictment down on men at large and in general–which is where I suspect it is meant to go.

At any rate, this was a fine and considered comment, and I thank you for bringing it.

Of course, and I strongly agree with what you’re saying about male relationships and comradeship–both in the original piece and in your comment. Whether it’s “just” a regular friendship or the bonds forged in harm’s way, these relationships exist and are important.

I’ve noticed that many of the people arguing that men either can’t forge these bonds, or that the environments they’re forged in are “toxic,” are the same people arguing for the importance of gendered space for girls. Drives me nuts.

“but there still needs to be room for girls to spend time with just other girls and boys to spend time with just other boys.”

That used to be the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Now it’s just the Girl Scouts that provides such “room”. I’m willing to bet good money that there will be no “boys only ” activities in the Boy Scouts within 5 years. Tops. Meanwhile, the Girl Scouts will stay “girls only”. 4-H worked just fine in providing various co-ed outdoor experiences for youngsters. Now the Boy Scouts will simply be an ersatz 4-H, at best.

Interesting to note that the LDS Church announced yesterday they are breaking their affiliation with Boy Scouts because of this move. That will likely end BSA as we know it. And the LDS folk will probably restart their own version.

But I can’t argue with the folks who point to the way a lot of men act and say that there’s a problem, because there is. Whether we call it toxic masculinity, male entitlement, or the sissy-fication of society by the removal of consequence (my preferred term), it’s definitely there.

Important to acknowledge this. Unfortunately, the term “toxic masculinity” is used deliberately and tactically by people with a very definite agenda to indict masculinity across the board. As Keith West pointed out, a lot of the toxic behavior we see reflects a lack of proper masculine role modeling and training (the removal of consequence, as you note). A friend of mine (a woman, not that it matters particularly) sums up the issue of “toxicity” quite succinctly: “Don’t be an asshole.” And as we all know, assholes are not gendered.

Absolutely. I’ve met a few people “with a very definite agenda to indict masculinity across the board,” and they almost always are using the issue (along with other “political” issues) to elevate themselves in their own mind and in the minds of others—in this case, by appearing forward-thinking, progressive, and enlightened. That behavior is twisted on so many levels. Worse yet, they’re often pointed to as role models for young people trying to figure out their own opinions.

The role model crisis is real, Cosby being the most recent example—one that served as a model for fathers in general and African-American masculinity in particular. For a lot of those guys it must be earth-shattering.

“The Role model crisis” — love that. Far too many fatherless homes and the men who are eventually put up as role models end up being Cosby or Weinstein or Kanye West. A gross exaggeration of course, but I’d sure like to see some validation of the other kinds of men who quietly doing it right every day and without applause or acknowledgement.

If there is such a thing as “toxic masculinity” it probably has to do with the lack of fathers and other positive role models. The causes would be interesting to discuss. I don’t think anybody has a plan to address this problem.

Agreed. The plans to address it probably need to come from personal commitments. The destruction of the nuclear family has done a real number on culture and where there are successes I see them as individual determinations…and fortunately there are a lot of those examples out there. Certainly no government agency is going to solve it. There are so many powerful influences undermining families today it is something of a miracle that any children survive to become functioning adults at all. And we have done a damn poor job in the role model category.

Nothing new under the sun. As long as we’ve had fights and people who were good at winning said fights society has been trying to figure out what to do with that kind of talent in peacetime. Essentially, it’s a grand thing to have waded into an oncoming army and disemboweled the enemy’s captain (moreso to survive getting back out) but it’s also understood that you don’t bring the bloody sword and severed head to the dinner table.

As for toxic masculinity, that goes hand in hand with that toxic femininity we’re not supposed to talk about. Debating which came first is a chicken-and-egg game. That part of human nature has been with us since the beginning. Whether it’s written on bathroom stalls or the sides of the cave. Maybe one day we’ll get it figured…then again, maybe we’re not supposed to.

In the meantime, it’s worth noting how attempts at suppression usually result in a pretty impressive backfire; try to stamp out the kind of things that come naturally to boys and they’ll rebel. Do it long enough and they’ll warp. Put a maladjusted kid in an environment where he gets credit for nothing and blame for everything and compound this by his only alternatives being social ostracism or a eunuch’s lot, and after a while the worst of his experiences tell him that dying in a pile of his own warm brass doesn’t sound too bad….

…shit happens.

I won’t say it’s right, ethical, moral, or justifiable. But by turns humanity usually listens closer to base urges than high ideals. I suspect that’s the how and why of our present society.

Aside from the occasional caterwauling about their absence, if there was a demand for good men – with commensurate benefits, recognition, and social standing – there wouldn’t be a shortage. No incentive? No payoff? No dice.

.…And yet look at the influential, dominant role Mrs. Petticaras had in that movie, and her daughter along with her son called the Raisuli’s “retainers”–one of the strongest female roles in a movie out there!

Boy howdy, can I harangue on THIS subject(a great pet peeve of mine!) till the cows come home! It is basically based on skewed male cow crap(B. S.), totally ignores broader historical and cultural comparisons, not to mention those of Nature and evolution(or Creation!)–and as Bell mentioned above so accurately, has to ignore the EQUAL disruption and social problems caused by Toxic Femininity! Do I ever have PLENTY of experience with both, and believe you me, males absolutely DO NOT have a monopoly on aggression, abuse, treachery, manipulation, dishonor, deceit, competitiveness, or just outright viciousness! It boils down to the behavior of individuals of the entire SPECIES, and blaming men(especially those manipulated behind the scenes by women since Adam and Eve!) for all societies woes is one of the plain STUPIDEST things to come down the pike in a long while! I’m gonna have to break up my comments here to keep from getting “timed out”–but let’s start Historically–my mention of Adam and Eve was not just a Southern Bible belt cheap shot–rather in the spirit of the splendid book “Ishmael”(though Daniel Quinn wisely did not EVEN try to get into all this sexist stuff in his books!), there is obvious truth in a lot of old stories–religious, fairy tales, and legends, and the story of Adam and Eve just goes to show anyone who dares to read between the lines, that strong female influence and manipulation was well understood several thousand years ago. That could be a whole fat post unto itself! Another would be the ignoring of many, many cultures where females have NOT been so subjugated and suppressed, yet there are still functional, blatant male/female roles, that are based more on actual natural abilities that mesh best for survival of the group/tribe/village than any chip-on-the-shoulder idea of “equality”.…to be continued.…

.….all my life I have been subjugated by the media’s attempt to brain wash me as to the inferior brutality of men running things(growing up during the heyday of the burgeoning Women’s Equality Movement, with Virginia Slims commercials on TV), which did indeed need some turning around in modern Western society I will admit, but when I, by sheer circumstance, ended up in situations with women running the show and dominating, at school and in the workplace, I found out to my enlightenment that they could be just as hatefully competitive, incompetent, egotistical, pompous, sexist, and abusive as anyone with gonads. I worked in the past on one all-girl crew(except for me) that was probably one of the single WORST workplace atmospheres I’ve ever experienced! I am working now on another all girl crew(except for me) that is one of the BEST work crews I’ve ever experienced! I learned to wait and see on judging ANYONE–regardless of sex, race, religion, or social status. I find it infuriating(and just plain STOOPID) how certain segments of society are just flip-flopping the BLAME for everything to excuse their own incompetence, or because it makes them feel good(endorphin release) to follow the loudest blatting of the herd.….to be continued.….

.….and hypocritically, I have heard again and again from many women in many situations, blatantly say they had rather deal with men ANYDAY, than try to work with other women–then turn around and bash men in almost the same breath. It really is a very stupid, contradictory phenomenon, and most of the females I’ve known that squall “Sexist!” tend to be the most actually sexist people I’ve encountered. But again, NEITHER sex has any monopoly on bad behavior towards the opposite sex in reality, but at the present time, it is perfectly politically acceptable to blast masculinity(while the same females often contradictoraly whine about the lack of “real” men!), but extremely taboo to do so regarding women–at least in this modern Western–and might I add–URBAN society! When I hear sexist comments from EITHER, I despise that INDIVIDUAL, and am not so brain dead that I join in and lump a buhzillion individuals of any category ALL under one negative, derogatory, ignorant designation.….shall I go on? I haven’t even gotten to the critter comparisons yet!.…

.….gotta do some critter comparisons here to illustrate some FACTS. It ISN’T masculine or feminine toxicity, except so far as testosterone has simply tended to make males larger and stronger physically so that they CAN physically(and abusively in many cases) dominate females. In other words, if females were the physically larger and stronger, they most assuredly would(and DO in some cases!) behave just as tyrannically. This is blatantly obvious in most of our closest living relatives, the primates–with a very few exceptions–like the female-dominated society of Bonobos and Patas monkeys(that’s a whole ‘nuther fascinating subject, however). I saw it most obviously while in the forest with Chimpanzees, who are terribly chauvanistic–mainly because males are bigger and stronger than the females so they can get away with it. They also brutalize each other for control–larger males subjugate smaller males. But it isn’t just because they are MALE. Females have their own hierarchy, and can often be quite harsh with each other(sound familiar??), and larger females tend to dominate smaller ones too–so should we call that toxic femininity? Females also have no qualms about kicking the crap out of adolescent males, until they grow too large to safely do so! I also witnessed a hulking abnormally large female who CHOSE to hang out with the males, and even go on territorial patrols with them and fight–a regular “warrior woman” of a chimpanzee–which was not typical! So yeah, there is ALL KINDS of reasons and distinctions between INDIVIDUALS, and negative pigeon-holing under a term like “masculinity” as the source of all abuse and aggression is just flat out IGNORANT.….and then there are LIONS, everybody’s favorite animal to use to point out masculine worthlessness(incorrectly, as it turns out, after MANY in depth studies on this most social of the cats).…to be continued.…

So yeah, there is ALL KINDS of reasons and distinctions between INDIVIDUALS, and negative pigeon-holing under a term like “masculinity” as the source of all abuse and aggression is just flat out IGNORANT…..

Edgar Rice Burroughs did a hilarious(and most decidedly politically incorrect nowadays!) bit on the reversal of male/female roles in his Tarzan novel “Tarzan And The Ant Men”(the actual tiny Ant Men being a whole separate subject in the story), where the Alali people were composed of hulking ‚huge, brutal women that totally dominated their smaller, gracile , effiminate men, and it was not a purty picture! Tarzan got involved and “fixed” things for the Alali men, and probably condemned himself forever as a fictional character to any fanatical wimmin libberz out there! Making it mandatory reading for guys like us, therefore. Quick! Get you a copy before they get abridged for political correctedness!

.…Gawd, as a critter geek, I SO TIRE of the cliche’ that is so popularly spouted on how male lions just lounge around, and the lionesses do all the work hunting and providing food for the pride–it has become an extremely over-used inaccurate description of lion society(and contradicts the saying mentioned above of males just “going out and getting the zebra”!) This idea that male lions do not hunt is completely false–they hunt all the time! They MUST hunt for themselves as young males kicked out of their home pride(don’t forget the infamous man-eaters of Tsavo, who were two young mane-less males!), until they are old enough, large enough, and with other male allies(usually) to help them take over a pride. Then when they get older and overthrown in their turn, if not killed outright in the process, must again hunt for themselves. While in a pride, they often help the lionesses pull down especially large and dangerous prey species like buffalo , giraffe, even hippos and young elephants at times, that the lionesses cannot manage on their own. They also patrol their territories constantly(usually at NIGHT, which is why they are lounging in the shade sleeping during the day when seen by people on safari!) warding off other male lion interlopers, hyenas, and other threats, or the females could never raise their cubs safely. Basically, a lion pride cannot function and survive without the distinctive roles of BOTH sexes, far beyond just that of the physical mating act. But my, how the male role in lion society is often overlooked by ignorant people who have no clue as to what they are talking about when using these cats as examples of masculine worthlessness. Kinda sounds like this current masculine bashing of bipedal primate society.…..

Thanks for that stirring defense, Lane! I was told the whole “lazy lion” myth from my childhood on. Then I watched ETERNAL RIVALS from NatGeo. That really opened my eyes to the importance of lions in a pride.

I spend way too much time working by myself-hence, I have a lot of time to think. I had read some crap by a Women’s Studies Professor and I was stewing over that and a little bit of Louis L’amour was coming in as well. I came up with this and I kind of like it. Pardon the drama, but it is a thought in development and could be an essay or something. A couple of thoughts.

1) “Women’s history is being raped in the shattered ruins of a burning town. It is the job of men to keep their women from falling to such a fate.”

Women also have a place in defending the “People.” I suspect that the folks who talk about “Toxic masculinity” are completely unfamiliar with the idea that the Apache women (for example) were the torturers.

I think Kipling also mentioned that you should save a bullet and kill yourself before the Afghan women got you.

It does women no good to portray them as victims or victims in waiting. Very bad things happen to women — no question; no argument. I’ve also seen women do really bad things. REALLY bad. Nobody attributes it to “toxic femininity.”

But maybe they SHOULD(start shouting about toxic femininity) to balance out this other skewed anti-male B. S. One doesn’t want to join in such petty, stupid stuff, but if you don’t sometimes, the petty stupid ones gain the controls. And that often boils down to(dishonorable as it may be) whomever shouts down their opponents. On a more positive, male rebellious note(although don’t forget Maid Marion!)–anyone seen the trailer for the newest edition of “Robin Hood” coming out in November? Looks intriguing(but then I always like all Robin Hoods, just some more than others.….).….

I heard it is supposed to be an “update”–in other words, modernized to present times–but that’s NOT what the trailer is depicting–maybe futuristic/post apocalyptic, and people are living very “medieval” again? That’s one theory.…. I reckon I’ll find out come November!

Personal story about my sister. I will forever hold her in contempt for her actions in the USAF.

She graduated high school in 1988-college in 1992. Then Air Force as an engineer. She always wanted to be pilot-so she got a pilot training slot. She became a C-5 pilot in the Air Guard and traveled all over the world-“Eating the King’s Salt.”

She had a baby in July 2002 and everybody can see where this is going.

When deployment orders came for the Iraq deal-she suddenly had a “Food Allergy” that would not allow her to be deployed-It was not a problem before.

The unit did not fight it. I figure they were just happy to see her walk out the door and be done with her.